Vector deleting destructors #3
Open
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
to scalar properly
|
TODO:
|
Fznamznon
commented
Jan 16, 2025
| if (RD->hasDefinition() && !RD->hasTrivialDestructor()) { | ||
| // FIXME: check devirtualization? | ||
| const CXXDestructorDecl *Dtor = RD->getDestructor(); | ||
| RequiresVectorDestructor = Dtor->isVirtual(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is likely wrong. 3 is passed even when the destructor is not virtual at all.
Comment on lines
+1657
to
+1662
| // llvm::Value *LoadThisForDtorDelete(CodeGenFunction &CGF, | ||
| // const CXXDestructorDecl *DD) { | ||
| // if (Expr *ThisArg = DD->getOperatorDeleteThisArg()) | ||
| // return CGF.EmitScalarExpr(ThisArg); | ||
| // return CGF.LoadCXXThis(); | ||
| // } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| // llvm::Value *LoadThisForDtorDelete(CodeGenFunction &CGF, | |
| // const CXXDestructorDecl *DD) { | |
| // if (Expr *ThisArg = DD->getOperatorDeleteThisArg()) | |
| // return CGF.EmitScalarExpr(ThisArg); | |
| // return CGF.LoadCXXThis(); | |
| // } |
Comment on lines
3897
to
3899
| // FIXME: Actually, the dtor thunk should be emitted for vector deleting | ||
| // dtors rather than scalar deleting dtors. Just use the vector deleting dtor | ||
| // mangling manually until we support both deleting dtor types. |
| if (Context.getTargetInfo().getCXXABI().isMicrosoft()) | ||
| Out << "() [vector deleting]"; | ||
| else | ||
| Out << "() [deleting]"; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| Out << "() [deleting]"; | |
| Out << "() [scalar deleting]"; |
|
|
||
| void adjustCallArgsForDestructorThunk(CodeGenFunction &CGF, GlobalDecl GD, | ||
| CallArgList &CallArgs) override { | ||
| assert(GD.getDtorType() == Dtor_Deleting && | ||
| "Only deleting destructor thunks are available in this ABI"); | ||
| // assert(GD.getDtorType() == Dtor_Deleting && |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can it be a scalar deleting dtor?
| if (isa<CXXDestructorDecl>(GD.getDecl())) | ||
| assert(GD.getDtorType() == Dtor_Deleting); | ||
| if (isa<CXXDestructorDecl>(GD.getDecl())) { | ||
| assert(GD.getDtorType() == Dtor_Deleting || |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| assert(GD.getDtorType() == Dtor_Deleting || | |
| assert( |
Sometimes new[] expression ends up in a function that is itself deferred so we first emit scalar destructor as a deferred decl then meet new[] for the type. Need to switch to vector deleting dtor then.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
No description provided.